nach oben

Sexuality Research and Social Policy

Erschienen in:

19.03.2021

LGBT Employment Nondiscrimination: Debating Sexuality and Citizenship

verfasst von: Kelsy Burke, Emily Kazyak, Alice MillerMacPhee

Erschienen in: Sexuality Research and Social Policy | Ausgabe 2/2022

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Introduction

Nebraska is 1 of 26 states that did not protect LGBT people from employment discrimination prior to Bostock vs. Clayton County. This article examines debates in Nebraska about LGBT employment nondiscrimination as a window into how citizenship is defined in relation to sexuality and gender identity.

Methods

We performed qualitative analyses on (1) the 2018 Nebraska Annual Social Indicators Survey of 902 respondents who shared their opinions on employment nondiscrimination legislation for LGBT individuals in close- and open-ended questions and (2) transcripts of the 2017 Nebraska state legislature debate of a bill that would have added sexual orientation and gender identity to the classes protected from employment discrimination.

Results

We find overlap in the primary frames employed by advocates and opponents. Both frame sexuality and gender as irrelevant to employment, and both rely on fairness and equality as rationales. Both sides also use a morality frame; however, those opposing argue that passage may result in discrimination based on religion.

Conclusions

While civil rights are often assumed to be conferred on all people designated as citizens in a society, this paper reveals that LGBT people’s inclusion in the state remains contested. Both sides articulate that the state is not neutral but is expected to be an enforcer of values through policies implicating gender and sexuality.

Policy Implications

Because LGBT nondiscrimination policies tap into broader debates over freedom, morality, and citizenship, these will likely continue to be contested in the years following the Supreme Court’s ruling that protects against employment discrimination.

Vorheriger Artikel “Your Rights End Where Mine Begin”: a Mixed-Methods Study of Moral Foundations Theory and Support for Bathroom Bills

Nächster Artikel Evidence for Hope?: Mississippi Christians’ Views Toward Gay and Lesbian Equality Post Obergefell v. Hodges

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Adam, B. D. (2003). The Defense of Marriage Act and American exceptionalism: The “gay marriage” panic in the United States. Journal of the History of Sexuality, 12(2), 259–276.CrossRef

Barclay, S., Bernstein, M., & Marshall, A. M. (Eds.). (2009). Queer mobilizations: LGBT activists confront the law. NYU Press.

Baumle, A. K., Badgett, M. V., & Boutcher, S. (2019). New research on sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination: Effect of state policy on charges filed at the EEOC. Journal of Homosexuality, 67(8), 1135–1144.CrossRefPubMed

Benford, R. D., & Snow, D. A. (2000). Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 611–639.CrossRef

Bernstein, M., & Reimann, R. (Eds.). (2001). Queer families, queer politics: Challenging culture and the state. Columbia University Press.

Berrey, E., Nelson, R. L., & Nielsen, L. B. (2017). Rights on trial: How workplace discrimination law perpetuates inequality. University of Chicago Press.

Blair-Loy, M. (2001). Cultural constructions of family schemas: The case of women finance executives. Gender & Society, 15(5), 687–709.CrossRef

Blumell, L. E., Huemmer, J., & Sternadori, M. (2019). Protecting the ladies: Benevolent sexism, heteronormativity, and partisanship in online discussions of gender-neutral bathrooms. Mass Communication and Society, 22, 365–388.CrossRef

Bonikowski, B., & DiMaggio, P. (2016). Varieties of American popular nationalism. American Sociological Review, 81, 949–980.CrossRef

Brown, H. E. (2013). Race, legality, and the social policy consequences of anti-immigration mobilization. American Sociological Review, 78(2), 290–314.CrossRef

Burke, M. C., & Bernstein, M. (2014). How the right usurped the queer agenda: Frame co-optation in political discourse. Sociological Forum, 29(4), 830–850.CrossRef

Callahan, M. P., & Zukowski, K. T. (2019). Reactions to transgender women and men in public restrooms: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Homosexuality, 66(1), 117–138.CrossRefPubMed

Canaday, M. (2009). The straight state: Sexuality and citizenship in Twentieth Century America. Princeton University Press.

Carrillo, H. (2017). Pathways of desire: The sexual migration of Mexican gay men. University of Chicago Press.

Cress, D. M., & Snow, D. A. (2000). The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105(4), 1063–1104.CrossRef

Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. (1990). Grounded theory research: Procedures, canons, and evaluative criteria. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 19(6), 418–427.CrossRef

Crabtree, B. F., & Miller, W. L. (1992). A template approach to text analysis: Developing and using codebooks. In B. F. Crabtree & W. L. Miller (Eds.), Research methods for primary care, Vol. 3. Doing qualitative research (pp. 93–109). Sage Publications, Inc.

Cox, D., Navarro-Rivera, J., & Jones, R. P. (2014). A shifting landscape: A decade of change in American attitudes about same-sex marriage and LGBT issues. Public Religion Research Institute.

D’Emilio, J. (2012). Sexual politics, sexual communities. University of Chicago Press.

Dejka, J. (2013). Schools’ insurer to offer benefits for spouses of gay employees. Omaha World Herald.

Feinberg, M., & Willer, R. (2015). From gulf to bridge: When do moral arguments facilitate political influence? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(12), 1665–1681.CrossRefPubMed

Ferree, M. M., Gamson, W. A., Rucht, D., & Gerhards, J. (2002). Shaping abortion discourse: Democracy and the public sphere in Germany and the United States. Cambridge University Press.

Fetner, T. (2008). How the religious right shaped lesbian and gay activism. University of Minnesota Press.

Flores, A. R., Herman, J. L., & Mallory, C. (2015). Transgender inclusion in state non-discrimination policies: The democratic deficit and political powerlessness. Research & Politics, 2(4), 1–8.CrossRef

Funk, J. (2013). Most Nebraska schools to offer same-sex benefits. Associated Press.

Ghaziani, A., & Baldassarri, D. (2011). Cultural anchors and the organization of differences: A multi-method analysis of LGBT marches on Washington. American Sociological Review, 76(2), 179–206.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Glissmann, B. (2013). Starting in 2014, some Nebraska hospitals will cover same-sex couples. Omaha World Herald.

Goldberg-Hiller, J., & Milner, N. (2003). Rights as excess: Understanding the politics of special rights. Law & Social Inquiry, 28(4), 1075–1118.CrossRef

Gruszczynski, M., & Michaels, S. (2014). Localized concerns, scientific argumentation, framing, and federalism: The case of Devils Lake water diversion. Journal of Natural Resources Policy Research, 6(2–3), 173–193.CrossRef

Hamilton, M. A. (2015). The case for evidence-based free exercise accommodation: Why the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is bad public policy. Harvard Law & Policy Review, 9, 129.

Herman, D. (1997). The antigay agenda: Orthodox vision and the Christian Right. University of Chicago Press.

Hull, K. E. (2001). The political limits of the rights frame: The case of same-sex marriage in Hawaii. Sociological Perspectives, 44(2), 207–232.CrossRef

Kazyak, E., Burke, K., & Stange, M. (2018). Logics of freedom: Debating religious freedom laws and gay and lesbian rights. Socius, 4, 1–18.CrossRef

Lewis, A. R. (2017). The rights turn in conservative Christian politics: How abortion transformed the culture wars. Cambridge University Press.

McCammon, H. J., Muse, C. S., Newman, H. D., & Terrell, T. M. (2007). Movement framing and discursive opportunity structures: The political successes of the US women’s jury movements. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 725–749.CrossRef

McCammon, H. J., Chaudhuri, S., Hewitt, L., Muse, C. S., Newman, H. D., Smith, C. L., & Terrell, T. M. (2008). Becoming full citizens: The US women’s jury rights campaigns, the pace of reform, and strategic adaptation. American Journal of Sociology, 113(4), 1104–1147.CrossRef

Minow, M. (1987). Interpreting rights: An essay for Robert Cover. The Yale Law Journal, 96, 1860–1915.CrossRef

Movement Advancement Project. (2020). Equality maps: State nondiscrimination laws. Retrieved from https://www.lgbtmap.org/equality-maps/non_discrimination_laws.

Mucciaroni, G. (2009). Same sex, different politics: Success and failure in the struggles over gay rights. University of Chicago Press.

Oliver, P. E., & Johnston, H. (2005). What a good idea! Ideologies and frames in social movement research. In Frames of protest: social movements and the framing perspective (pp. 185–204). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Olsen, K. A. (2014). Telling our stories: Narrative and framing in the movement for same-sex marriage. Social Movement Studies, 13(2), 248–266.CrossRef

Pakulski, J. (1997). Cultural citizenship. Citizenship Studies, 1(1), 73–86.CrossRef

Pedriana, N. (2006). From protective to equal treatment: Legal framing processes and transformation of the women’s movement in the 1960s. American Journal of Sociology, 111(6), 1718–1761.CrossRef

Pew Research Center. (2014). Religious landscape study. http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/geography.

Pew Research Center. (2019). Sharp rise in the share of Americans saying Jews face discrimination. https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/04/15/sharp-rise-in-the-share-of-americans-saying-jews-face-discrimination/.

Powell, B., Quadlin, N. Y., & Pizmony-Levy, O. (2015). Public opinion, the courts, and same-sex marriage: Four lessons learned. Social Currents, 2(1), 3–12.CrossRef

Puri, J. (2016). Sexual states: Governance and the struggle over the antisodomy law in India. Duke University Press.

Rasmussen, C. E. (2006). We’re no metro sexuals: Identity, place and sexuality in the struggle over gay marriage. Social & Cultural Geography, 7(5), 807–825.CrossRef

Reed, L. (2012). Domestic partners to get benefits at NU. Omaha World Herald.

Reich, G., & Mendoza, A. A. (2008). “Educating kids” versus “coddling criminals”: Framing the debate over in-state tuition for undocumented students in Kansas. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 8(2), 177–197.CrossRef

Richardson, D. (2018). Sexuality and citizenship. Sexualities, 21(8), 1256–1260.CrossRef

Riggle, E. D. B., Rostosky, S. S., & Horne, S. G. (2010). Psychological distress, well-being, and legal recognition in same-sex couple relationships. Journal of Family Psychology, 24(1), 82–86.CrossRefPubMed

Snow, D., Benford, R., McCammon, H., Hewitt, L., & Fitzgerald, S. (2014). The emergence, development, and future of the framing perspective: 25+ years since “frame alignment.” Mobilization: An International Quarterly 19(1), 23–46.

Soule, S. A., & King, B. G. (2006). The stages of the policy process and the Equal Rights Amendment, 1972–1982. American Journal of Sociology, 111(6), 1871–1909.CrossRef

Stange, M., & Kazyak, E. (2016). Examining the nuance in public opinion of pro-LGB policies in a “red state.” Sexuality Research & Social Policy, 13, 142–157.CrossRef

Stein, A. (2001). The stranger next door: The story of a small community’s battle over sex, faith, and civil rights. Beacon Press.

Stone, A. L. (2016). The impact of anti-gay politics on the LGBTQ movement. Sociology Compass, 10(6), 459–467.CrossRef

Stone, A. L. (2019). Frame variation in child protectionist claims: Constructions of gay men and transgender women as strangers. Social Forces, 97(3), 1155–1176.CrossRef

The American Association for Public Opinion Research. (2016). Standard definitions: Final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys (9th ed.). AAPOR.

Turley, J. (2008). An unholy union: Same-sex marriage and the use of governmental programs to penalize religious groups with unpopular practices. Same-sex marriage: Emerging conflicts.

Turner, B. S. (Ed.). (1993). Citizenship and social theory. Sage Publications, Inc.

Valocchi, S. (1999). Riding the crest of a protest wave? Collective action frames in the gay liberation movement, 1969–1973. Mobilization: An International Quarterly, 4(1), 59–73.

Van Dyke, N., & Taylor, V. (2019). The cultural outcomes of social movements. In D. A. Snow, S. A. Soule, H. Kriesi, & H. J. McCammon (Eds.), The Wiley Blackwell companion to social movements (pp. 482–498). Wiley.

Vasi, I. B., Walker, E. T., Johnson, J. S., & Tan, H. F. (2015). “No fracking way!” Documentary film, discursive opportunity, and local opposition against hydraulic fracturing in the United States, 2010 to 2013. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 934–959.CrossRef

Vitulli, E. (2010). A defining moment in civil rights history? The employment non-discrimination act, trans-inclusion, and homonormativity. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 7(3), 155–167.CrossRef

Walters, S. D. (2016). The tolerance trap: How God, genes, & good intentions are sabotaging gay equality. New York University Press.

Westbrook, L., & Schilt, K. (2014). Doing gender, determining gender: Transgender people, gender panics, and the maintenance of the sex/gender/sexuality system. Gender & Society, 28(1), 32–57.CrossRef

Worthen, M. G. F. (2019). A rainbow wave? LGBTQ liberal political perspectives during Trump’s presidency: An exploration of sexual, gender, and queer identity gaps. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 17, 263–284.CrossRef

Ygnvesson, B. (1993). Virtuous citizens, disruptive subjects: Order and complaint in a New England Court. Routledge.

Titel: LGBT Employment Nondiscrimination: Debating Sexuality and Citizenship
verfasst von: Kelsy Burke
Emily Kazyak
Alice MillerMacPhee
Publikationsdatum: 19.03.2021
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Sexuality Research and Social Policy / Ausgabe 2/2022
Print ISSN: 1868-9884
Elektronische ISSN: 1553-6610
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-021-00561-2

Springer Professional

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Policy Implications

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2022

Heteronormative Beliefs and Internalized Homonegativity in the Coming Out Process of Portuguese and Turkish Sexual Minority Men

Debating Sex and Sovereignty: Uganda’s New National Sexuality Education Policy

Perspectives of Transgender Women Toward Study Recruitment and Retention: Thematic Analysis from Thailand

Disabled Women, Care Regimes, and Institutionalised Homophobia: a Case Study From Poland

Multilevel Barriers to Sexual Health Behavior Among Vulnerable Adolescent Girls in the USA

Evidence for Hope?: Mississippi Christians’ Views Toward Gay and Lesbian Equality Post Obergefell v. Hodges